Transport (Scotland) Bill - Schedule 4 - Minor and Consequential amendments

The amendment aims to streamline the bill, addressing minor inconsistencies that have been identified during the drafting process. This will ensure that the legislation is robust and clear for all stakeholders.

MP Graham Stuart expresses concern that Great British Railways would both operate services and influence decisions on network access, raising questions about impartiality in capacity allocation decisions.

He emphasised the importance of resolving conflicts in open access agreements and mentioned a potential multimillion-pound boost to Wellington with improved rail links.

Asked for reassurance on delivering a railway station in Aldridge and questioned who would take decisions regarding open access agreements.

Welcomed the Bill's provisions to close loopholes preventing back-door privatisation of GBR rail services and sought further commentary from the Minister.

Supported the idea that bringing rail and railways together would improve customer experience, citing her own constituency's positive experience with South Western Railway.

Asked about the process for reopening Middleton Junction train station in his constituency under Great British Railways.

Expressed concerns regarding suicides at Harlow Mill railway station and asked if moving to GBR would help address safety issues more easily.

Suggested that while there was initial consensus on integration between track and train, further work is needed on the Bill after extensive amendments during Committee stage.

Defended privatisation by highlighting improvements in railway safety since privatisation.

Supports Ruth Cadbury's amendments and highlights research from RNIB showing that 58% of visually impaired individuals find it impossible to use ticket vending machines. She agrees with the need for a minimum number of accessible ticket machines.

Agrees that the needs of disabled passengers, such as those described by his constituent Katrina with thalidomide syndrome, must be recognised. He supports improving railway accessibility to ensure safe and comfortable use for everyone.

Supports new clause 1 for a statutory passenger charter, as it would help hold railways accountable for basic standards such as reliable wi-fi.

Grateful to the Minister and Lord Hendy for supporting new clause 36, which allows bereaved family members of armed forces personnel to travel free on Remembrance Sunday. Also supports new clause 37 for community consultation on train service frequency post-COVID.

Supports new clause 5 for exploring reinstatement of an orbital railway, which could bring benefits to towns such as Holt in his constituency.

Welcomes Government amendments clarifying GBR’s powers but argues that further improvements are necessary through Liberal Democrats' proposed new clauses and amendments. Advocates for better passenger experiences, environmental commitments, fare reform, and devolution of decision-making.

Ms. Maskell intervenes to emphasise the importance of including former British Rail Engineering Ltd employees in discussions about travel passes, as they lost their benefits upon privatisation.

Mrs. Eccles asks Mr. McDonnell if he agrees that outsourced staff have also lost rail perks and mentions the refusal of discounted travel by West Midlands railway despite their willingness to offer it.

Mr. Mishra points out that outsourcing disproportionately affects Black, Asian and minority ethnic workers in cleaning and catering roles, suggesting systemic racism is a consequence of outsourcing practices.

Supports new clause 30 for accessibility strategies, new clause 29 to minimise disruption with transport authorities, amendment 65 regarding level crossings, and new clauses 40 and 37 for frequency of services based on population changes. He raises concerns about the lack of improvements since nationalisation and the need for better communication during disruptions.

Intervenes to highlight that building near railway stations can generate economic growth, reuse brownfield land, and benefit communities. He disagrees with concerns about planning processes not considering additional services.

Supports the Bill but raises concerns over industrial relations during the transition to GBR, job losses at Network Rail, and the erosion of collective bargaining arrangements. He calls for a high-level industrial relations strategy alongside the high-level output specification.

Intervenes to congratulate Andy McDonald on his work in developing policies based on this legislation. He agrees with sectoral collective bargaining as a building block for the new system, emphasising stability and long-term investment.

Mr. Turner supports Government amendment 92, welcoming its presence on the amendment paper as it makes the intent of public ownership explicit. He also discusses devolution provisions and disability access recommendations from the Select Committee. Mr. Turner highlights the importance of natural railway geographies in devolution agreements.

I support amendments 56, 57, and 58 which aim to ensure the safety of rail workers by extending GBR’s function to include an assurance for their safety from assaults. These amendments also secure safe staffing levels and mandate consultation on changes to staffing levels before any decisions are made. Additionally, I propose an amendment ensuring that staff can be TUPE-ed across or retained in case open access operators fold.

Intervened to support Ms. Morton’s proposal, highlighting constituents' concern over high rail ticket prices.

Welcomed the Bill and discussed his own amendments focusing on integration between different modes of transport, devolution and consultation, loyalty programmes for customers, and station aesthetics. He did not directly address new clause 17 or amendment 46.

Supports the need for an accessible rail strategy to ensure that all constituents can travel safely and independently, citing his own experiences with mobility issues at local stations. He also supports new clause 53 on key performance indicators and amendment 157 aimed at reducing public subsidy.

Mr. Hinchliffe emphasises the need to rewrite railway rules so that they work for ordinary people rather than profit-seeking shareholders. He highlights how high fares and poor service have led many people to avoid using the railways altogether, with some instances making it cheaper to fly abroad than travel by train within the UK. He also points out that a majority of Brits (70%) support reinvesting savings from ending rail privatisation into cutting fares or opening new services.

Mr. Dance supports amendments tabled by his Liberal Democrat colleagues, which aim to provide a passenger charter with guarantees on value for money, proper seating arrangements, reliable services, improved accessibility and better links between rail travel and onward transport such as buses or active travel routes. He cites examples of how current conditions in Yeovil make train travel challenging, including high fares, overcrowding, inadequate seating, poor wi-fi service, and a lack of bus connections for delayed trains.

Mr. Rodda supports the bill and expresses concern over step-free access for disabled people at Reading station, particularly in relation to taxis. He also highlights economic benefits of rail investment and discusses the importance of improving accessibility.

Mr. Spencer aims to improve services in his constituency, proposing new clauses for better co-ordination among transport authorities, an accessible rail strategy, stakeholder feedback on planned changes, and a review before approving infrastructure projects. He also seeks improvements to level crossings.

Mr. Fox shows support for Mr. Spencer's new clause 30 and inquires about the Minister's stance on it.

Supports Government amendment 136 but expresses concerns about its scope compared to the Railways Act 2005. Advocates for a partnership duty and recommends revising clause 16 from 'having regard' to 'acting in accordance with' local transport plans to ensure better alignment between rail policies and wider place-based development goals.

Proposes new clauses 10, 12, and 13 to devolve rail powers and funding in Wales to the Welsh Government. Highlights the current system's inefficiencies for Wales due to lack of integrated network planning and investment disparity. Advocates for full devolution of rail infrastructure to unlock much-needed investment for Wales and fair funding distribution reflecting its railway network share.

Introduces an immediate four-minute time limit to ensure all colleagues can contribute, without taking a clear stance on the amendments themselves.

Expressed concern over a 5% increase in crime, particularly violence and sexual offences, recorded by British Transport Police. Noted a funding shortfall of £8.5 million for BTP. Criticised outsourcing practices that lead to systemic racism and poor terms and conditions for outsourced workers. Highlighted the issue of Reddish South train station with only one weekly train service. Supported amendments related to increasing services in underserved areas and improving disabled access. Advocated for bringing rolling stock companies under public control.

Complained about poor reliability of rail services in her constituency, with frequent delays. Supported new clause 1 for a passenger charter to improve service standards. Raised issues regarding unfair treatment of children as adults by rail companies at age 15. Proposed new clause 11 to prevent bike thefts and provide secure cycle storage facilities at stations. Advocated for amendment 55 and the now-withdrawn new clause 16, aiming to increase train frequency and explore 'rails to trails' opportunities in Dorset.

Proposes amendments to ensure ticket office availability and formalise consultation processes, emphasising the importance of public ownership and accessibility in rail services. Cites local examples such as the Stourbridge Dasher service and emphasises the need for accessible fares.

Supports new clauses to enhance local rail services, advocating for more frequent and reliable rail services in Wiltshire. Emphasises that the Bill must go further to enable local rail growth and suggests a new passenger charter.

Supports new clause 16, advocating for GBR to establish a department to identify underserved areas and assess needs for services. Cites the example of Shrewsbury as an area in need of improved railway services.

Supports new clauses 1, 3 and 60. Cites performance figures showing cancellations and delays by South Western Railway. Emphasises the need for investment in station accessibility, especially at Hersham and Hinchley Wood stations. Argues that a tomorrow’s railway fund would benefit local authorities bidding for funding to improve infrastructure.

[INTERVENTION] Provides statistics on Worcester Park station, showing worse performance under nationalisation. Agrees that residents care more about punctuality and cancellations than the train's symbolism.

Supports the Bill as a necessary step towards public ownership of railways. Highlights the importance of strengthening jobs for rail workers and recognising trade unions during transition to GBR. Calls for addressing concerns raised by transport unions, including pension arrangements and job losses. Proposes new clause 16 to establish opportunities to expand rail services in underserved areas.

[INTERVENTION] Asks the Minister about how the Bill will help bring back vital rail links in underserved areas like North Cornwall. Highlights initiatives such as Kernow Connect and argues that the Bill does not go far enough.

She supports amendments 70 and 71 to improve accessibility for disabled people. She argues that nationalisation offers an opportunity to prioritise passenger needs over profit, ensuring trains are designed inclusively with all users in mind.

Intervened to support new clause 23 for full railway accessibility within a decade, emphasising the importance of addressing current issues in her constituency's railway stations.

Intervened to criticise the performance of South Western Railway after nationalisation, citing issues like delays and overcrowding, suggesting concerns about the effectiveness of current nationalisation efforts.

For decades, my constituents have been dealing with the consequences of privatisation. The Bill aims to nationalise railways, creating Great British Railways as a single, publicly owned body focused on passengers rather than shareholders. Amendment 92 ensures future Ministers cannot reverse this progress and return to past fragmentation. My family has a strong connection to the railway sector, highlighting the pride workers take in their service despite systemic failures under privatisation. Fragmentation has led to inefficiencies in planning, investment, and delivery of services, necessitating an integrated approach. Public ownership promotes better use of generated funds for network improvements and local development. This is evident in the improved performance of publicly owned operators like South Western Railway compared to those still privately owned. The Bill aims to bring railways back together and simplify a complex system.

Railways are critical for many constituents, especially in areas without rail connections. Privatisation since 1997 has led to a fragmented system, highlighting the importance of integrated transportation. The Bill enables better management and procurement under Great British Railways, with strategic planning that includes Scottish Ministers' contributions. The amendment ensures no scope for future partial privatisation. I am encouraged by provisions supporting rail freight, such as Russell’s in my constituency which relies on it for distribution. Increasing rail freight from 7% to the European average of 19% could significantly reduce road congestion and carbon emissions. I look forward to making a case for a rail link to Glasgow airport within the context of the strategic approach delivered by the Bill.

The Minister supports the proposed amendments that address safety, safeguarding, workforce effectiveness, governance, long-term strategy, environmental sustainability, station improvements, fare discounts for veterans, freight access, devolution in Wales, specific infrastructure projects, and accountability. He highlights GBR's commitment to these issues while maintaining that the bill is focused on establishing GBR rather than making specific commitments.

He thanks the Minister for meeting him and discusses the importance of ensuring that all British people are included in discussions about railway accessibility, particularly referencing the Mobility and Access Committee for Scotland.

He seeks reassurances regarding devolution agreements not being unduly limited by the Bill or its implementation, specifically mentioning Transport for West Midlands as an example.

He asks about funding commitments to the east of England, in addition to the £1 billion committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail.

He confirms that a meeting with RMT parliamentary group is planned to discuss travel facilities for staff and insourcing, highlighting the Minister's commitment to further discussions.

She seeks clarity on accountability measures within GBR, emphasising the need for transparency and oversight in governance.

Emphasises that Great British Railways will replace a privatised system, bringing integration and public benefit. The Bill promises simpler ticketing systems, reliable services, and economic benefits through coherent decision-making in customers' interests.

Hopes that parking at Worcestershire Parkway station can expand under Great British Railways, seeking reassurance from the Secretary of State.

Welcomes new powers on timetabling and provides examples of how it could improve passenger experience without building infrastructure. Mentions faster services from Hastings to London and better coordination between Southeastern and Southern Railway.

Expresses concerns for open access operators like Hull Trains, fearing that GBR may not have regard for them when seeking rail track access in future.

Intervened to highlight that the Government is not offering hope to passengers, particularly in failing to address simple constituency matters raised by Back Benchers. This intervention supports the notion that the Labour-led government's railway reforms are detrimental to passenger satisfaction and service quality.